FlashHarry:whatever it is, clearly mittens thinks the political fallout for not releasing his returns is preferable to the fallout that would come from releasing them.

And why shouldn't he? The GOP knows that our main stream media have the attention span of a 3 year old with ADD. They know that by the time the debates come around this issue will be so old that it won't even come up.

Bontesla:Bladel: Considering how much mileage they are getting out of the "you didn't build that" lie, the Dems might as well go ahead and run with this.

And if it isn't true, well Mitt can always release his taxes to prove them wrong....

What's amazing is that Rmoney feels this is preferred to actually releasing his returns.

He still probably thinks people won't care enough for it to matter. and maybe for some that's true, but it is still several months until election and this kind of thing can erode his support. How can people trust a man who keeps these kinds of secrets?

JerseyTim:I'm also sticking with the "really, really undertithed" theory.

The "I didn't pay any taxes -- and that proves how farked up our Tax Code is BUT ALSO how smart I am!" ad practically writes itself. Who doesn't cheer for someone sneaky enough to get away with something completely legally, at some level?

The way-under-tithed thing is really interesting. If he has to catch-up tens of millions to LDS, he might be willing to take the hit politically in return for keeping the cash. After all, he's mostly spending other people's money on this campaign as well.

wejash:The "I didn't pay any taxes -- and that proves how farked up our Tax Code is BUT ALSO how smart I am!" ad practically writes itself. Who doesn't cheer for someone sneaky enough to get away with something completely legally, at some level?

Um...the people who can't afford to give 10% of their income to their church and write it off. Who can't afford a dressage horse or cayman island bank accounts? These are loopholes that the rich exploit becuase they're not practical to be exploited by anyone else.

And that may rub the filthy masses the wrong way because they inevitably have to take up the slack for what the rich don't pay. (at least if the GOP gets their way)

wejash:JerseyTim: I'm also sticking with the "really, really undertithed" theory.

The "I didn't pay any taxes -- and that proves how farked up our Tax Code is BUT ALSO how smart I am!" ad practically writes itself. Who doesn't cheer for someone sneaky enough to get away with something completely legally, at some level?

The way-under-tithed thing is really interesting. If he has to catch-up tens of millions to LDS, he might be willing to take the hit politically in return for keeping the cash. After all, he's mostly spending other people's money on this campaign as well.

I worked for a mormon family. A cousin of the family was caught under tithing (the separated and scorned wife tipped off the sect leaders).

It was a huge freaking deal. The church used him as an example during sermons. They constantly bullied him. Members approached him - sent their children to approach him.

gilgigamesh:I think it is more likely this, which is just as bad. And it fits the facts as we know them.

EG:-- That he had a Swiss bank account-- That it was closed in 2010-- That it was with UBS-- That the IRS amnesty was in 2009-- That UBS was the bank at the center of the disclosures that formed the basis of the Amnesty-- That of the 3000+ account holders who talked to the IRS in 2009, on the order of 100 had let the IRS know about the accounts previously.

Sure, Mitt can release his tax returns, but then how do we know that they're *really* his tax returns? They could be easily faked, so maybe we should get some county Sheriff to look 'em over just to make sure.

Seriously, though, Romney doesn't need to release them, all it'll take is a question at the debates that brings up the subject, where either the moderator flat out asks each candidate how much they paid in taxes, or Obama says "I've paid 30% in taxes for decades", how about you?

abb3w:gilgigamesh: I think it is more likely this, which is just as bad. And it fits the facts as we know them.

EG:-- That he had a Swiss bank account-- That it was closed in 2010-- That it was with UBS-- That the IRS amnesty was in 2009-- That UBS was the bank at the center of the disclosures that formed the basis of the Amnesty-- That of the 3000+ account holders who talked to the IRS in 2009, on the order of 100 had let the IRS know about the accounts previously.

propasaurus: I think it's great. 'I'm not saying... I'm just saying.'

A bit more class than claiming Mitt Romney's taxes raped and murdered a girl in 2009.

Also, Mitt gave McCain his returns up to 2008. Now, he's released only 2010, with a promise to release 2011 'when it's done.' So, what happened in 2009?

czei:Sure, Mitt can release his tax returns, but then how do we know that they're *really* his tax returns? They could be easily faked, so maybe we should get some county Sheriff to look 'em over just to make sure.

Seriously, though, Romney doesn't need to release them, all it'll take is a question at the debates that brings up the subject, where either the moderator flat out asks each candidate how much they paid in taxes, or Obama says "I've paid 30% in taxes for decades", how about you?

Small point of correction, but Obama didn't pay 30%, either. I haven't gone through all of his tax returns, but he's still paying less than the average American. However, he's almost certainly paying more than Romney.

Ambivalence:wejash: The "I didn't pay any taxes -- and that proves how farked up our Tax Code is BUT ALSO how smart I am!" ad practically writes itself. Who doesn't cheer for someone sneaky enough to get away with something completely legally, at some level?

Um...the people who can't afford to give 10% of their income to their church and write it off. Who can't afford a dressage horse or cayman island bank accounts? These are loopholes that the rich exploit becuase they're not practical to be exploited by anyone else.

And that may rub the filthy masses the wrong way because they inevitably have to take up the slack for what the rich don't pay. (at least if the GOP gets their way)

Wait, you can write off money you give to a religious institution? I think I found a way to fund my retirement. I'll start a church and give write offs to my congregation for sir donations. If I declare myself the Grand Poobah can my salary be tax exempt too?

"We feel comfortable in the Senate. Where the problem is, is this: Because of the Citizens United decision, Karl Rove and the Republicans are looking forward to a breakfast the day after the election. They are going to assemble 17 angry old white men for breakfast, some of them will slobber in their food, some will have scrambled eggs, some will have oatmeal, their teeth are gone. But these 17 angry old white men will say, 'Hey, we just bought America. Wasn't so bad. We still have a whole lot of money left.'"

"We feel comfortable in the Senate. Where the problem is, is this: Because of the Citizens United decision, Karl Rove and the Republicans are looking forward to a breakfast the day after the election. They are going to assemble 17 angry old white men for breakfast, some of them will slobber in their food, some will have scrambled eggs, some will have oatmeal, their teeth are gone. But these 17 angry old white men will say, 'Hey, we just bought America. Wasn't so bad. We still have a whole lot of money left.'"

Lsherm:czei: Sure, Mitt can release his tax returns, but then how do we know that they're *really* his tax returns? They could be easily faked, so maybe we should get some county Sheriff to look 'em over just to make sure.

Seriously, though, Romney doesn't need to release them, all it'll take is a question at the debates that brings up the subject, where either the moderator flat out asks each candidate how much they paid in taxes, or Obama says "I've paid 30% in taxes for decades", how about you?

Small point of correction, but Obama didn't pay 30%, either. I haven't gone through all of his tax returns, but he's still paying less than the average American. However, he's almost certainly paying more than Romney.

Your own article says he pays much more than the average American. He paid slightly less than the average 1%er because he gave a bunch to charity.